|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2017 |
|
|
Non‑recording of reasons for a magistrate’s takeover violated section 214(1) CPA, rendering subsequent proceedings and judgments null and prompting retrial.
Criminal procedure – Transfer of partly heard trial – Section 214(1) CPA – Mandatory recording of reasons for magistrate change – Failure to assign reasons renders successor’s proceedings a nullity – Retrial ordered.
|
15 December 2017 |
|
High Court's uncommunicated dismissal breached the right to be heard; appeal quashed and revived for hearing.
* Criminal appeal – dismissal versus striking out – distinction and consequences
* Right to be heard (audi alteram partem) – dismissal without hearing is unlawful
* Timeliness of notice of appeal – notice given within statutory period renders appeal competent
* Remedy – quashing of illegal dismissal, revival of appeal, reassignment, and fast‑tracking for hearing
|
15 December 2017 |
|
Applicant's review alleging error for upholding conviction after expunging psychiatric evidence dismissed as disguised rehearing.
* Criminal procedure – Review jurisdiction under Rule 66(1) – "Error apparent on the face of the record" defined – requires an obvious, patent mistake not needing prolonged re-assessment.
* Evidence – Expungement of a psychiatric/medical report and attendant witness evidence – effect on conviction – re-assessment of remaining oral evidence cannot be remedied by review.
* Procedure – Review application that effectively seeks re‑hearing of an appeal is impermissible and will be dismissed.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
Dismissing an appeal without hearing the applicant violated the right to be heard; appeal reinstated for rehearing.
Criminal appeal procedure – dismissal v. striking out – right to be heard (audi alteram partem) – notice of intention to appeal – competency and reviving appeals.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
The applicant’s failure to cite the specific sub‑paragraph of Rule 66(1) rendered the review application incompetent.
* Civil procedure – Review – Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules – Review powers exercisable only where grounds in paragraph (a)–(e) are specified. * Civil procedure – Form of application – Rule 48(1) requires citation of specific rule and statement of grounds; non‑citation renders application incompetent. * Precedent – earlier unobjected cases distinguishable where non‑citation is raised.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
The applicant's failure to specify the paragraph under Rule 66(1) renders the review application incompetent.
* Civil procedure — Review — Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules — Requirement to indicate specific paragraph (a)‑(e) relied upon — Non‑citation renders application incompetent.
* Civil procedure — Form of application — Rule 48(1) — Every application must cite specific rule and state grounds for relief.
* Jurisprudence — Mere citation of enabling provision without sub‑rule is incurably defective; prior cases distinguishable if issue not raised.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive manslaughter sentence after trial judge ignored mitigating factors and relied on irrelevant considerations.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appellate interference where sentence manifestly excessive – Trial court’s failure to consider mitigating factors – Improper reliance on use of weapon as aggravation – Reduction of sentence.
|
13 December 2017 |
|
Conviction for unlawful possession of a government trophy upheld; evidence sufficient despite missing seizure documentation.
* Criminal law – Wildlife Conservation Act – unlawful possession of government trophy (lion skin) – proof of possession by arrest and opening of luggage on roadside stop * Evidence – credibility and corroboration of prosecution witnesses; admissibility and weight of co-accused’s testimony * Evidence – absence of seizure certificate/search warrant does not necessarily invalidate strong direct evidence of possession * Criminal procedure – judgment must state points for determination (s.312 CPA) * Sentencing – sentence within statutory range under Wildlife Conservation Act
|
13 December 2017 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and struck out where the record omits trial exhibits admitted as court exhibits.
Civil procedure — Appeal record completeness — Rule 96(1)(f) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — requirement to include all documents put in evidence; Civil Procedure Code O. XIII r.4(1) and r.7(1) — endorsement and inclusion of admitted exhibits; Effect of amended pleadings — originals cease to have effect; Interpretation of Laws Act s.20(1) — permissibility of short title citation.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Appellate court reduced a manslaughter sentence after the trial judge overlooked mitigating factors and relied on irrelevant considerations.
Criminal law — Manslaughter — Sentence — Alleged excessiveness — Failure to consider mitigating factors — Reliance on irrelevant consideration (use of sharp weapon) — Appellate interference and substitution of sentence.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Arson conviction upheld; life sentence set aside as illegal and reduced to lawful term resulting in immediate release.
• Criminal law – Arson – Identification by eyewitnesses and corroboration – credibility of relatives' evidence.
• Sentencing – "Liable to imprisonment for life" construed as maximum, not mandatory sentence.
• Sentencing jurisdiction – Section 170(1)(a) CPA limits subordinate courts to five years' imprisonment unless statutory exception or confirmation applies.
• Appellate powers – Court may set aside illegal sentence and substitute lawful sentence under section 4(2) AJA.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe visual identification at night led to quashing of conviction and setting aside of sentence.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Waziri Amani warning – necessity to eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity; importance of earliest opportunity to name suspect; adequacy of lighting and descriptive particulars; caution where witnesses may have motive or grudges; appellate review where lower courts misdirect on identification evidence.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Conviction based solely on uncertain nighttime visual identification was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – Waziri Amani caution – necessity to eliminate all reasonable possibilities of mistaken identity; factors: light source/intensity, distance, duration, familiarity, description of clothing, earliest opportunity to name. * Evidence – Delay or failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity undermines reliability. * Appeal – Second appellate court may interfere where courts below misapprehend or misdirect on material facts.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Review under Rule 66(1) refused: no manifest error or denial of fair hearing; application dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules — scope restricted to grounds (a)–(e) — error must be obvious and patent on the face of the record. * Right to fair hearing — alleged denial where advocate absent — court may refuse adjournment where prior opportunities existed and further delay prejudices respondent. * Finality of litigation — review power to be exercised rarely and sparingly; litigation must come to an end. * Failure to prosecute — repeated adjournments and lack of substitute counsel justify dismissal and defeat review.
|
9 December 2017 |
|
A Notice of Appeal that fails to substantially comply with Form D (essential particulars) is incurably defective and struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 83(6), Form D) – Notice of Appeal – substantial compliance – essential requirements: court title, parties, judge, date, signature – misdescription of appellant and wrong decision date – incurably defective notice – appeal struck out.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
Unsigned preliminary‑hearing memorandum and absence of investigator did not prejudice case; identification and conviction were upheld.
* Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing – memorandum of matters agreed under s.192(3) CPA – unsigned memorandum not fatal where no prejudice shown; * Identification – dock identification vs contemporaneous identification – daylight, proximity and corroboration support reliable ID; * Evidence – no obligation to call investigator (s.143 Evidence Act); minor inconsistencies immaterial; * Sentence – application of s.131(3) Penal Code; reduction from life to 30 years where complainant not under ten.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
An incomplete record ordinarily warrants striking out, but the court may revise proceedings to remedy jurisdictional illegality.
Court of Appeal — incomplete Record of Appeal — missing ruling and drawn order under Rule 96(1) — ordinarily fatal; Order XVIII Rule 10(1) Civil Procedure Code — successor judge must record reasons for takeover — failure is illegality affecting jurisdiction; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(3) — revisional powers to quash proceedings and remit for continuation; remedy — quash proceedings from takeover stage, set aside judgment, remit for trial to continue.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
A joint opinion by assessors breaches section 298(1) CPA, vitiates the trial and requires quashing and retrial.
* Criminal procedure — Assessors — Section 298(1) CPA requires each assessor to give a separate oral opinion and have it recorded — joint opinion invalidates assessors' role.
* Effect of joint opinion — Where assessors give a joint opinion the trial is treated as having been conducted without the aid of assessors and is vitiated.
* Appellate jurisdiction — Section 4(2) AJA — Court may quash proceedings and order retrial where assessors' statutory role is frustrated.
|
7 December 2017 |
|
Where judges take over a partly heard trial without reasons, the appellate court may quash proceedings and remit for continuation.
Court of Appeal – incomplete Record of Appeal – Rule 96(1) & (3) Court of Appeal Rules – succession of judges without reasons – Order XVIII Rule 10(1) Civil Procedure Code – jurisdictional illegality – invocation of revisional powers under section 4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
7 December 2017 |
|
Joint opinion by assessors breaches s.298(1) CPA, vitiates trial and mandates retrial.
Criminal procedure – Assessors – Requirement under s.298(1) CPA that each assessor states and has recorded a separate opinion – Joint opinion by assessors vitiates trial – Proceedings and sentence quashed; retrial ordered.
|
6 December 2017 |
|
Affidavit defective for missing attesting officer's name; applicant ordered to pay half of respondent's costs.
Civil procedure – review application – affidavit attestation – jurat must show name of attesting officer – preliminary objection for defective affidavit – costs – discretion – half costs awarded where conceding party failed to notify opposing counsel.
|
5 December 2017 |
|
|
2 December 2017 |
| November 2017 |
|
|
Applicant cannot obtain leave to appeal land matters from Court of Appeal; jurisdiction vests in the High Court.
* Land law – jurisdiction – section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act – leave to appeal in land matters vests exclusively in the High Court; Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant leave.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – conflicting Court of Appeal authorities – rule to follow recent decisions and concept of per incuriam.
|
27 November 2017 |
|
Applicant’s review failed: alleged contradictions and missing exhibits did not show manifest error or proven fraud to justify review.
* Criminal procedure – Review under Rule 66(1) – requirement of manifest error apparent on the face of the record; not a re-hearing of appeal.
* Review – alleged fraud/perjury or illegality in procurement of judgment – burden to prove fraud; mere speculation insufficient.
* Evidence – contradictions requiring re-evaluation do not amount to manifest error for review purposes.
|
2 November 2017 |
| August 2017 |
|
|
High Court erred by not excluding time to obtain judgment; appellants' consolidated appeal reinstated for hearing.
Criminal procedure — computation of time for appeal under section 361(1) CPA — time to obtain certified copy excluded from 45‑day limit; High Court erroneously struck out timely consolidated appeal; Court of Appeal invoked revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA to quash and set aside orders and restore appeal for hearing.
|
25 August 2017 |
|
A district court’s merits decision based on an appeal incorrectly filed from the wrong originating case is a nullity and is quashed.
Civil procedure – Appeal jurisdiction – Petition of appeal incorrectly showing wrong originating case – Appellate court proceeding despite fatal procedural irregularity – Determination without jurisdiction is a nullity – Appeal quashed and set aside; fresh appeal permitted.
|
25 August 2017 |
|
|
25 August 2017 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out where respondent failed to prove written in-time request for certified copies and to institute appeal.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Striking out notice of appeal under rule 89(2) for failure to take essential step within prescribed time.
* Civil procedure – Rule 90(1) proviso – exclusion of time where written application within 30 days for certified copies of proceedings is made and certified by Registrar.
* Civil procedure – Requirement under rule 90(2) that application for copies be in writing and a copy served on the respondent; burden to prove compliance.
|
25 August 2017 |
|
The respondent's failure to prove a timely written request for High Court records led to striking out her notice of appeal.
Appeal procedure — Striking out notice of appeal under rule 89(2); Time for instituting appeal — rule 90(1) proviso and rule 90(2) requirement to apply in writing within 30 days and serve copy; Evidentiary requirement — must annex proof of written request for High Court records; Service — refusal to accept service can constitute effective service; Duty of High Court to supply records but applicant must prove compliance.
|
25 August 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: applicant's complaints were merits-based appeals, not grounds authorised under Rule 66(1).
* Review jurisdiction – Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – limited to manifest error on face of record, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or judgment procured illegally/fraudulently.
* Review is not an appeal – merits-based re-evaluation of evidence cannot be conducted on review.
* New grounds raised for the first time on review are impermissible.
* Right to be heard – reviewable only if record shows deprivation of opportunity to present submissions.
|
24 August 2017 |
|
Whether the appellants' consolidated appeal was timeously lodged under section 361(1) CPA and the High Court erred in striking it out.
* Criminal procedure – appeals to High Court – computation of limitation periods under section 361(1) CPA – exclusion of time required to obtain certified copies of proceedings; * Notices of intention to appeal – compliance with section 361(1)(a); * Appellate revisional powers – section 4(2) AJA – quashing erroneous striking out and related proceedings.
|
23 August 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: applicant’s complaints were merits-based appeals, not grounds permitted under Rule 66(1).
* Criminal procedure — Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules — limited grounds: error on face of record, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud/illegality/perjury.
* Civil/criminal appeals — Distinction between review and appeal — re-evaluation of evidence (merits) is not permissible on review.
* Procedural bars — New issues (e.g., variance between preliminary hearing and trial evidence) cannot be raised for first time on review.
* Right to be heard — Allegation of denial must be supported by record; existence of hearing on record defeats such claim.
|
23 August 2017 |
|
Recognition identification by fellow fishermen upheld armed robbery convictions; corporal punishment was set aside for lack of opportunity to be heard.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – identification by recognition – reliability where victims know suspects, bright moonlight and naming at earliest opportunity (Waziri Amani principles).
* Evidence – discretion of prosecution under s.143 Evidence Act to call witnesses; failure to call owner not necessarily fatal.
* Procedure – non-compliance with s.240(3) CPA (right to have medical practitioner called) renders PF.3 inadmissible.
* Sentencing – corporal punishment not to be imposed to accused's prejudice without affording opportunity to be heard; appellate court may set aside such punishment.
|
22 August 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: alleged errors required re‑evaluation of evidence and raised new issues, amounting to an impermissible appeal rather than Rule 66 review.
* Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66 — limited to manifest errors on the face of the record; not a forum to re‑evaluate evidence or credibility. * Criminal procedure — Admissibility/corroboration of medical evidence (PF.3) and requirement to call examining medical officer — inadequacy of such complaints at review if not raised earlier. * Procedural law — New issues cannot be introduced at review stage. * Rule 66(1)(e) — allegation of illegality, fraud or perjury must be pleaded and proved.
|
22 August 2017 |
| July 2017 |
|
Elections – Election Offences and Irregularities - Bribery and Corrupt Practices
Elections – Election Petitions - Burden of Proof in Election Cases
|
28 July 2017 |
|
Notice to a political party suffices for its candidate; alleged procedural errors did not void the election.
* Election law – Regulation 61 – Notice of addition of votes – Service on political party constitutes notice to candidate.
* Election law – Election petitions – Standard of proof – burden on petitioner to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
* Election law – Election expenses disclosure – burden of proof and persons capable of knowledge (party secretary, Registrar, CAG).
* Electoral procedure – Arithmetical error in Form 24B – trivial slip not vitiating election where polling-station Forms 21B are unrebutted.
* Evidence – s.176(1) Evidence Act – court powers to order production; procedural limits on party applications.
* Procedure – affidavits under Election Rules – verification and applicability of Oaths Act/CPC (observations were obiter).
|
28 July 2017 |
|
Insufficient proof of alleged irregularities cannot void a parliamentary election; notice to party suffices for candidate.
Electoral law – election petitions – proof beyond reasonable doubt; service of notice to political party suffices for candidate under Reg.61; Election Expenses Act disclosure and burden of proof; clerical errors in Form 24B not fatal absent prejudice; s.176(1) Evidence Act production of documents; affidavits in election petitions and verification.
|
24 July 2017 |
|
Trial of combined economic and non-economic offences without DPP consent/certificate is null and requires retrial.
Criminal procedure – Economic offences – Requirement of DPP's consent under section 26(1) – Requirement of certificate under section 12(4) to try combined economic and non-economic offences in subordinate court – Lack of consent/certificate renders proceedings nullity – Exercise of revisionary powers under s.4(2) AJA.
|
19 July 2017 |
|
Trial of combined economic and non-economic offences without DPP's consent/certificate is a nullity; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – Economic offences – Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (s.26 Cap 200) required before trial in subordinate court. * Criminal procedure – Certificate under s.12(4) Cap 200 required to permit subordinate court to try combined economic and non-economic offences. * Jurisdiction – Lack of consent/certificate renders trial and ensuing appeal a nullity. * Remedy – Quash proceedings, set aside conviction and sentence, order de novo retrial; exercise of revisional powers (s.4(2) AJA).
|
19 July 2017 |
| May 2017 |
|
|
Summary dismissal (no notice) removes civil court jurisdiction; local government disciplinary scheme does not override statutory procedure.
* Employment law — summary dismissal — meaning as dismissal without notice or payment in lieu; * Jurisdiction — ouster of civil courts under s.28(1) Security of Employment Act (now s.29(1) Cap. 387) for summary dismissals; * Local Government Service Act — internal disciplinary scheme does not exempt employees from statutory procedures absent Gazette notice; * Remedy — challenge to summary dismissal lies through statutory/administrative mechanisms, not a civil suit.
|
26 May 2017 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual ID and recent-possession evidence were unreliable and chain of custody was not established.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – visual identification reliability – delay in naming suspect undermines credibility.
* Criminal law – recent possession doctrine – prerequisites for invocation; requirement that stolen property be positively identified and recently stolen.
* Evidence – exhibit identification – requirement for prior description and physical demonstration in court (Nassoro principle).
* Evidence – chain of custody – compliance with section 38(3) Criminal Procedure Act necessary to exclude tampering.
* Criminal appeals – second appeal interference where concurrent factual findings are founded on material misapprehension of evidence.
|
26 May 2017 |
|
Assessor cross‑examination was improper and prosecution evidence was insufficient, so conviction was quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Trial with assessors – assessors may put questions for clarification but must not cross‑examine (s.177 Evidence Act); procedural irregularity amounting to incurable irregularity and potential nullity; sufficiency of circumstantial evidence – reliance on hearsay and absence of key witness fatal; retrial not ordered where prosecution case inadequate.
|
26 May 2017 |
|
A magistrate's succession without recorded reasons renders subsequent proceedings null and requires remittal for retrial.
Criminal procedure – Succession of magistrates – Section 214(1) CPA requires that reason(s) why a predecessor cannot complete a trial be recorded – Failure to record reasons renders successor's proceedings a nullity – Remedy: nullification and remittal to resume trial from prosecution's close.
|
25 May 2017 |
|
Failure to enter a formal conviction after a guilty plea is fatal; sentence quashed and matter remitted for proper conviction and sentencing.
* Criminal procedure – guilty plea – requirement to formally record a conviction after a guilty plea – absence of a conviction renders any sentence unlawful.
* Sentencing – sentence imposed without conviction – vitiated and liable to be quashed.
* Appellate jurisdiction – invocation of revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA to quash and remit defective convictions and sentences.
* Resentencing – necessity to account for time already served.
|
25 May 2017 |
|
Misnaming a corporate respondent vitiates proceedings and nullifies related applications, warranting striking out.
* Civil procedure – Party description – Corporate misnomer – Proceedings instituted against wrongly named corporate respondent and omission of necessary party vitiate proceedings.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Revisional powers – Court may nullify proceedings where parties are wrongly described or necessary parties omitted.
* Consequence – Applications dependent on a nullified decision (e.g., extension of time) cease to exist and may be struck out.
|
25 May 2017 |
|
|
24 May 2017 |
|
The applicant's armed robbery conviction was upheld despite expunged exhibits because immediate chase, arrest and confession established identity.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification by chase and apprehension at scene – Visual identification unnecessary where immediate arrest follows alarm and chase.
* Evidence – Exhibits – Chain of custody – Admission procedure mandatory; broken chain warrants expungement of exhibits.
* Appeal – Conviction safe where reliable eyewitness testimony and confession remain despite excluded exhibits.
|
24 May 2017 |
|
|
24 May 2017 |
|
Omission to enter a formal conviction before sentencing is fatal; judgment quashed and record remitted for proper conviction or retrial.
Criminal procedure – omission to enter conviction – sections 298(3), 312(2) and 314 Criminal Procedure Act – sentence without formal conviction fatal – revisional powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – judgment quashed and record remitted – option for retrial – account to be taken of time served.
|
24 May 2017 |
|
Appellant's armed robbery conviction upheld despite expunged exhibits because eyewitness chase, arrest and confession proved guilt.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – sufficiency of identification evidence – immediate chase and apprehension at scene as reliable identification evidence. * Evidence – Exhibits – chain of custody – broken chain renders exhibits inadmissible and they may be expunged. * Appeal – appellate court may uphold conviction on remaining credible eyewitness evidence despite expunged exhibits.
|
23 May 2017 |